Oh sure, Rock Port, Missouri managed to snag the title of being "
100% wind powered," but Texas' new plan will make the Show Me state's gusty initiatives look awfully weak. Officials at the Public Utility Commission recently okayed a plan to "build billions of dollars worth of new transmission lines to bring pollution-free energy from West Texas to urban areas." The ginormous Lone Star state is
already the nation's leader in wind power, but when said plan is fully implemented (pending final approval), it'll produce more wind energy than the next closest 14 states combined. Granted, customers will be paying a touch more ($4 per month is the current estimate) for all this clean energy, but pundits assert that the cost is minor when looking at just how much this will help out Mother Earth. Look for everything to go live in four to five years, barring any unforeseen setbacks.
[Thanks, Adam]
posted Jul 18th 2008 6:16AM
After last night's lamb madras and peshwari nan with lime pickle, our office is now 100% wind powered.
I see what you did there...(+ 1)
What, low ranked!? C'MON!!! U gotta admit London's comment was funny!!!
Someone?
ANYONE!?
*sadly puts his "low rank" sign around his neck, trudges back to his cubicle* LOL
Damn... I thought it was funny too...
you know these are probably just to mount cameras on to catch them border jumpers on
this isn't even close to the border.
Whatever it takes, right?
A sad day for kite-lovers everywhere.
There are plenty of other places to fly your kite. Affordable domestically-produced energy is more important than flying a kite.
Apparently your humor flew over Rob's head along with your kite.
Along with the fact that the energy we already have is more affordable AND domestically produced. Why do people not get it that coal and natural gas are found HERE, and are extremely cheap, and even pretty clean?This is NOT the same issue as gasoline/oil! It's apples and oranges.
Wind power is NOT pollution free. Those wind farms are rediculous....have you ever seen one in person?
Quit wasting money on this crap and get fusion ready instead. That's the only energy source I'd advocate switching to.
@Mike
Coal is NOT clean, and the output from burning it is what causes acid rain, and thereby high mercury levels in the fish we eat. Natural gas is better, but it's also going to run out at some point if there is never an attempt at alternative energy. Did I mention that NG has more than doubled in price recently?
The reason for all of this is, guess who? T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire CEO of BP. So cry all you want, but you have big oil to blame for this one.
Duffman:
Actually, coal is much cleaner than it used to be. No, it's not pollution-free, but coal power plants contribute very little to overall pollution. There are only about 600 of them in this country. Compare that to automobiles, and you'll see the point. Changing from one coal plant to one wind plant has almost zero impact. However, it has a major economic impact.
Don't point at China as evidence.....they are using extremely old technology with their power production.....and they are burning more coal than the next 3 largest coal burning nations combined.
Natural gas plants are better than coal in many ways except cost, although they're cheaper than wind and solar.
If you're gonna spend this kind of money, build 2 nuke plants instead! Nuclear is cheaper than coal!!! It's the cleanest form of energy we have (wind power pollutes just by existing, and making/transporting those turbines pollutes enough to make up for their gains).
Oh go fly a kite!
I feel bad for all the birds... sucks to fly into one of these bad boys!
@Mike
If you're using the "manufacturing wind farms pollutes" argument - and I'm not sure if you are - then you have to consider that the pollution ends after manufacturing ceases.
In a coal plant, pollution begins with construction of the plant and goes on through its entire lifespan.
What happens when you stop the wind?
Each turbine extracts some energy from the wind (lets assume it blows constantly).
At some point there will be no useable energy in the wind, then seeds and pollen from plants won't spread, toxic gas build-ups won't be dispersed, weather patterns would be drastically affected.
One car doesn't contribute to pollution, millions and billions do. Do you think wind power would be "environmentally friendly" if you replace every car with a turbine? (Spoiler: The answer is no)
one car does contribute to pollution. do you see that hole in the back of yours, thats where it exits. turbines do cause some pollution in their creation, but its not like a coal powerplant is magically created without pollution. once a turbine is created, thats it. and if every car was replaced with a turbine, we wouldnt get anywhere because you dont ride in wind turbines, and wed have a shitload of energy from all of them.
Motivated by the price of crude, but very welcome.
This wind farm push, while innovative and welcome by many (including me), is still motivated by profits, political pressure, and large federal and state subsidies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzAR6SpYoaE
So? That's how things get done in a capitalistic country. Investors will put in MILLIONS of their own dollars if they see that the US Government will enforce much harsher environmental standards. If a company's R&D department gets far enough long to make long-lasting, quickly rechargeable batteries, then the shareholders will benefit from that.
While price gouging is horrible in and of itself, greed drive innovation.
"but pundits assert that the cost is minor when looking at just how much this will help out Mother Earth"
Where were those pundits during the last ice ages and their corresponding warm ages? If only we had them around then to give their assertions, maybe we could have saved Mother Earth!
I, for one, welcome our ever-asserting pundit overlords.
Obviously, our SUVs are now polluting SO MUCH that we've affected the climate in the past!
Great Scott, Marty!
Wow, I guess nobody on this blog has a sense of humor.
Oh they've got a sense of humor, but when someone ruins their theories so easily said sense of humor disappears completely.
Won't someone please think of the pigeons!
There are plenty of those crapping all over the city in any town USA.
Maybe the flying squirrels and bats then:
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200805171816
Mmmm... yes they're delicious!
Well done. And the bedrock of the Republican party no less.
You can tell it is in a republican area because it is going to cost people more for the same amount of energy, instead of less, and still be called an improvement.
erislover -
Do you think they have volunteers building these new power lines? Even if they didn't increase their power bills by the proposed 4-5 dollars a month and paid for it with a big govt. subsidy then they'd probably increase taxes to cover that.
Nothing's free. But atleast we're paying our own companies instead of Riyahd.
@ M
Of course nothing is free. But if it costs more to implement this then it is the wrong time to implement this. One seeks alternatives when the current method is not efficient. If a new television makes me happier than my current one, it doesn't necessarily cost me more even if the new television is more expensive in strict dollar terms.
So therefore, perhaps someone could argue that the market price of energy is currently not properly accounting for externalities, and so this is an improvement. It might be a good argument, if the data is available. But then it wouldn't be "costing more" to do this.
And, sure we're paying our own companies. Not that I think that matters much in the grand scheme of things. Free markets, free trade, and all. Of course, it is more convenient for our companies to have us take the long view when it costs us more, but the short view to justify them doing it so they can collect.
I guess there's no law to demand consistency in energy policy.
First off, I'm unable to vote so the whole Republican/Democrat/Independent partisan debate does not affect me.
Second, they're all the same, except maybe the Independent party but I cannot see America EVER moving that way so it's like that hot, talented female basketball player who somehow makes her way into the NBA but still gets destroyed every game who you want to root for but who you know should not be on the court.
it's against the Republican stereotype to invest into environmentally-friendly energy-alternatives so your Republican jab makes no sense.
Further, $4 a month more means less demand on oil, meaning more supply, meaning you pay less for oil.
Finally, this is an initial investment that will eventually pay for itself.
Check out Rockport, MO.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/22/rock-port-missouri-celebrates-being-100-wind-powered/
They save money.
Good luck, this is the good future.
Exactly, this is a great example for all these other countries!
Most of Europe has been using this form of energy production for decades. The US is sooo behind the times and it's about time this country started to think more about it's global affect and not just on cost.
most of europe doesn't. Germany and the nordic nations are the biggest producers of "wind energy" and they only cover a fraction of their energy used by the wind energy. France on the other hand covers 80% of it's electricity use from nuclear power plants and are building more so they can export power. That is one good thing the French do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/07/flamanville_normandy_northern.html
This is the present, and the future :) Green Mountain Energy here in Houston, fully utilizes this solution already, and I love the fact that i use clean energy. Once I get my EV, my skin color will be grinched.
Liberal idiocy.
It will only cost an additional $4 per month per customer in Texas.
Aren't alternative forms of energy supposed to cost people less?
Wake up, America!
Paying an extra 4 dollars a month in order to lessen the amount of $$$ that gets sent overseas to radical islamic havens is money well spent and an alternative energy that TX and the USA should embrace. Kudos to the great state of Texas!
Alternative forms of energy are *supposed* to do something better for us as a whole than what we're using right now. If the opportunity cost for less pollution is less than $50 a year, then sign me up.
That way I don't have to feel bad about not donating to any non-profits.
I agree. However, considering that this will be clean energy instead of energy produced by burning other products, I think it's a start. My only concern is that with all the "incentives" and tax breaks energy companies get from federal and state governments, why are our energy costs going up, by double digits, all over the country? Deregulation was supposed to make energy cheaper due to "competition" they claimed. But, if it's almost impossible to get fair competition in the cable tv field, what makes you think that we'd have that in the energy sector. It's not like it takes a couple of million dollars to do that.
We need an energy policy today. We haven't had that in decades. Our country is going down the crapper left and right, but all our "elected officials" worry about is bailing out big banks, with our own tax money.
If you think $4 is too much, you're drinking the wrong cool-aid. All the objections I've been hearing is that renewables cost too much and will ruin our economy. At $4 (less that a gallon of gas) let the market work!
I happen to live in Texas and have the pleasure of occasionally seeing the blades for these monsters as they are being delivered (the sight alone tends to slow traffic a bit). They are ridiculously huge and thus, probably cost a pretty penny which explains the extra $4 a month.
The savings from renewable energy is always a long term result not immediate. Long term, since unlike a coal plant this will not require any fuel to be purchased; and not immediate because obviously someone has to fund the initial development.
All said though … way to go Texas (and frankly considering how much history this state has as in oil I am pleasantly surprised to see this happening here) but then again Texas has an ego it has to maintain … everything larger etcetera
The $4 per month (which won't be billed until around 2014) is for the cost of the transmission lines. It does not include the cost savings that will result from wind displacing natural gas. Those savings are estimated (by ERCOT, not by me) to be three times as large.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.powerofwind.org
www.awea.org
www.20percentwind.org
Since when did anyone say alternative energy was going to be cheaper. I think everyone has been pretty aware for a while now that going green means spending it.
Stupid nonsense.
I'm not sure why you think alternative fuels are supposed to cost people less. I think the idea is that they are alternatives to the conventional
fuel.. The price for all fuel can't logically be identical so alternative fuels will be either more or less than conventional fuels, but I have never heard reasoning that all alternatives must be less than the standard..
Wake up, AUTiger89!
I learned to speak conservative watching the last election so let me explain in your own language:
You must be a terror loving, al Queda jihadist to want to see America crushed under the heel of muslim oil control for the next 100 years.
Why do you hate freedom so much?
Well $4/person doesn't seem like much, but it's $4/month per person. According to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html there are about 24 million people in Texas (23.5 million in 2006). If every 4 people makes the average "customer" size (actually it's more like 3.5 or so on average), that means Texans would be paying $24 million extra PER MONTH. That's $288 million per year!!! That just doesn't make sense to me. It's a minimal gain in pollution from coal/natural gas (the big polluter is cars, not power plants!!!). I for one think T. Boone is an idiot.
This is great for Texas because they use so much natural gas. Since a natural gas turbine has a quick response time (you can turn it on and off in a matter of minutes as the wind blows or stops blowing) and can be run as a synchronous condenser (helpful for regulating wind's power factor), it is a pretty good fit for wind generation. As NG has gone from $2 to $8 to $14 (!!!) over the last couple of months, the feasibility of these turbines has gone from "meh.." to "woohooo".
Unfortunately, for the rest of us that either don't have wind or run on a higher mix of coal, wind is not quite as feasible, but getting there.
Dan L (and others who keep bringing up oil):
This has nothing to do with oil or the Middle East or gas prices. Do you realize this stuff the electricity that goes to homes/businesses? We don't get that from oil (it was at 1.5% of total power production in 2006 and falling)!
I have to agree and it maybe unpopular but I grew us in NYC and I have a house in the Penn. County, there is a difference in air quality but its really not that bad. I went to Asia for 6 months last year and if you want to see air pollution look at Beijing, Shanghai, Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh City. People in the country complain about pollution and i don't think most of them know what it is. I could be being tricked by the commercial but to my understanding coal is pretty clean. In fact i am pretty sure thee is a coal plant not to fair from here and you wouldn't know. Al this wind power stuff is cute until it starts costing more than what we have. Essentially, what they are staying is even with the increase in the cost of oil and the doubling of the cost of NG this will still cost more per month. You call it the power lines or whatever you want but thats still BS. If we are building these plants to "stop giving terrorist money" rather than fight for some liberal environmentalist BS then we should build nuclear plants. They emit no pollution and generate a lot more and more stable power and they are not such blight because its one plant instead of 1000s of windmills hence they take up less space too. I don't blame Mr. Pickens for trying but this is clearly a load of crap if its going to cost more to get power for a free source than it would to get power from a source we import from generally hostile countries at a high premium or that we have plenty of in your own country. I wish they would give the environmentalists their own wonderland island so they can all be happy in a bio dome somewhere and raise taxes and whatever else and not bother other people who just want to live regular lives not destroy the planet but still be able to enjoy it .
This coupled with conservation can make a tiny dent. More good ideas over at http://www.energyefficientnation.org/
Oklahoma is the obvious sweet spot for wind power because Kansas sucks and Texas blows.
Note to self: fly higher
- Pete the Talking Parrot
Of course it will cost a mere $4 more a month...then rise to more. Welcome to the BS brigade kiddies, Some of you are so high upon your enviro quackery you forget common sense and buy into utter crock.
The day a wind farm can power a factory, a town of 50,000 and ramp up to meet rising demand is when its viable...until them its a gimmick.
Until more of you are educated in following below you are screwed and willl be screwed by the charlatans that exploit your raw emotions and rampant ignorance.
(1) Critical thinking.
(2) Logical thinking
(3) Cost benefit analysis
(4) Simple high school Physics
Study these subjects for a mere few days and you should be able to make a rational decision and spot utter BS when spewed.
So what do you propose? Should we power a factory, a town of 50,000 and ramp up to meet rising demand with your allmighty knowledge of high school physics?
Nastro, where is your logical, critical thinking? I see no cost benefit analysis from your post. Where's your physics? Hey, I just spotted some BS!
If you want some research and facts why don't you read this paper
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
The truth of the matter is that Wind Farms cannot significantly increase or even support a real power grid on its own or without approximately 80% power back up (THATS BEING VERY GENEROUS, and not even starting to account for the growth of future power needs based on population inceases in the US) So we still need coal which by the way is starting to be very clean and reasonable.
Oh by the way...you know how your teachers taught you that oil is a fossil fuel and that it will run out...turns out they were teaching a hypothesis that has been disprooved over and over and over! Turns out oil is a RENEWABLE RESOURCE and will be produced by the earth until the earth is no more.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952
Wow, what a great, unbiased source of information!
aweo.org - Industrial Wind Energy Opposition:
Resources for debunking claims, documenting ill effects, and fighting the spread of industrial wind power.
hmm, that acronym doesn't make sense - wonder why they're using it? Could it be because it's almost identical to this:
awea.org - American Wind Energy Association
One month of the iraq war could pay for this with coin to spare.
AMEN!!!
I live in Amarillo and for years I have wondered why we have not been a major source of wind power. I IS ALWAYS ANNOYINGLY WINDY HERE. It is about time.
So, why is Wind more costly than say, oh, burning something that we had to dig out of the ground?
1) Texas is spending $1.8 BILLION on a 500 MW wind farm. That's a ton of money for a smallish power plant.
2) 500 MW is the RATED capacity, not an average. That's what it would produce if all of the wind turbines are rotating at their optimum speed.
3) Wind is variable
4) Wind turbines are very inefficient at capturing wind energy (coal & naturalgas are much more efficient, and nuclear blows them all away)
5) We are flat-out LOADED with coal and natural gas in this country. It's dirt cheap because it's over-abundant.
less efficient.
Mike, you do realize that we're using alternative resources to create electricity becuse they're less polluting, right? This has very little to do with saving money, at least for now. 50 years from now, who knows? By then the world will have pretty much ran out oil. Natural gas is definitely cleaner than oil and coal, but we don't have an unlimited supply. If we simply move from oil to natural gas to power our cars and heat our homes, we'll run out of natural gas soon enough.
True, but cost of fuel = 0. The initial investment per watt may be loads above a standard plant (coal for example), but after you build it, it's only the maintenance fees that will get you. I think they are front-loading all of the startup costs because of the uncertainty of it not being the best technology in the near (10 year) future.
"True, but cost of fuel = 0."
Really. We import fuel from the middle east, canada, etc for free?
Diamonds and gold are free also, I'm gonna head down to the jewerly store and claim mine.
While this is great this is partly a scheme to pump water into Dallas. Which will have very negative environmental effects.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25/b4089040017753.htm?chan=search
In other news:
Texas has approved the installation of Diesel Powered Fan Farms to blow into the Wind Generation farms...
Last time I drove threw west Texas the landscape was nothing but wind turbines. It looks cool but the "wild west" landscape now looks like some sort of terraforming project on Planet Z.
Wind power was here long before coal, gas and oil, and in the long run, it may be the answer to small scale power generation.
I was raised in Florida on a ranch that pumped water and generated electricity with wind power.
I grew up in a North Carolina community that, at one time in the 70s, was completely powered by a huge wind generator atop a mountain. (Remember the Whooshies!)
My home at the coast is at this moment pumping water for my crops with an old Chicago windmill. It is clean and green. No birds have been harmed. They perch on the lightning rod above, and the tower below. (They have avoidance 'radar', so do not fly through the moving vanes.)
My belief is that wind power is not solely for rural applications but can and should be a supplement to suburban sites. A small wind generator such as mine needs only an average of an 8mph breeze to generate enough electricity to run several circuits with lights, fans and computers.
I even use a small wind generator on the fishing vessel. You would be surprised at what you can do for (almost) free with vanes, cables, storage cells, and a little knowledge.
@Mike
Wow, dude....you can do the math, but you're not thinking with the kinda perspective that matters. Boone Pickens is NOT an idiot; you don't become a billionaire by being stupid.....ok I take that back, Mark Cuban didn't deserve his money. lol jk
Listen to the reason Pickens is pushing this so hard!
I urge EVERYONE to watch this video:
http://www.pickensplan.com/
Now the only issue I have with his plan is that our representatives are too much in the pocket of lobbyists to get this done, but essentially he's right.
What it comes down to is this: wind is NOT an answer to our prayers, but it IS a solution to help us transition. The point is not to use natural gas to replace crude oil, but only to help until we have perfected hydrogen fuel cells and other technologies.
Furthermore, I work for a power company that has coal and NG plants....AND it's about to build a very large wind plant.
Fact:
Wind can NOT be your only source of energy. In fact, it must account for less than 10% of your total energy production. If you try to do more, your customers are going to be extremely unhappy. All of those towns that are "100%" wind-powered are misleading....they get supplemental energy when demand is up and wind is down. You must have a steady source. Wind can only be a supplement. I am ALL FOR building nuclear plants. It has the best of all aspects. Only problem: takes 10-12 years to build a plant.
I'm laughing my ass off at all the idiots here that keep referring back to oil, gasoline, fuel cells, etc. How did this become a discussion over automobile fuel???? The two are NOT RELATED!!!!!
Wind won't replace oil in any way, shape, or form. Wind won't power your car.
Transitioning with wind doesn't make sense to anyone that knows how power works. It's only a supplement, and a small one at that.
Reason it's so expensive even though the fuel is free? Because the equipment is outrageously expensive. Because you can't put a wind farm near the major cities that use the power (wind farms must be put where the wind is) so you have to build hundreds of miles of transmission line (a very expensive thing to do). Because you still have to perform maintenance on thousands upon thousands of spinning turbines (moving parts = maintenance nightmare, especially when they're 100 ft+ in the air). Because those turbines are very inneficient, so the power they produce isn't very much compared to initial cost. Because those transmission lines introduce heavy losses on top of the low efficiency of the turbines, due to their length.
Oh, and T. Boone is an idiot. I get to see plenty of him in the news around here. Owning land that has oil when a major oil boom is just starting does not make you smart. It makes you lucky. He's a billionaire, but he didn't get that money through intelligence.
Wind is really a waste of time and especially money. If this were the real deal (like fusion) I'd be advocating spending as much as we can afford to get it up and running ASAP. Unfortunately, wind is not the answer, and fusion isn't ready yet.
Pollution: I was referring to the fact that these farms take up hundreds upon hudreds of acres. Drive around Cali and you'll see what I mean. Their once-beautiful mountains look like shit now. This is the crap that environmentalists won't let us do to Alaska to get billions of barrels of oil, even though very very few people live there, and the pipelines don't take up that much space (I've seen the one there....it's not that bad, and the animals like it due to it's slight warmth). However, they don't care when the entire horizon is dotted with windmills in areas where people actually live.
@ Mike:
"Wind won't power your car."
Wind power creates electricity.
We have electric cars.
...
"In fact, it must account for less than 10% of your total energy production."
It's a fact that wind power must be less than 10%? Where did you pull this number from, everybody know it less than 68.242542%.
Someone please help me here... If the equipment is already bought with tax payer's hard earned money and the wind is "free" why is it everyone is paying a $4 premium extra a month to go green? Assuming that okay the start up costs are expensive now after the initial investment but in the long run it will be more cost effective..... does any1 really think they will lower the electric bills in the future? Now Im all for green renewable forms of energy but im having a hard time following all this funny math.
Rock Port, MI is actually 140% wind powered (they give back electricity since they don't use it all)
As I read this I am listening to NPR talking about the US Congress still NOT renewing the tax credits for non fossil fuel power plants. Stupid, oil industry bought bastards.
How are people going to have to pay extra for energy generated for free or pay extra for oil. I understand there is a cost to building the think ok fine but who really thinks with the 30+ million people in Tx paying $48 a year each for a few year this won't be paid off in a few years? When they then take away the extra cost NO. My theory of the cabal between the environmentalist and big business continues. They need to be stopped or they will F- us all in the a$$. Thext this we will see is bottled air wait they sell that already....
Mike is pretty well right on all counts...
Burning coal is very clean, and if you think otherwise it's because you're a patsy and fell into fear mongering propaganda. It's carbon, you scrub the trace elements out.
It seems if someone opposed so called "green" projects they get ostracized to hell. Most people don't even understand the principles behind these projects about and then wonder why they can't put a wind turbine on top of their electric car to get a perpetual motion car. If the mob says it's good, it must be!
They should paint coal plants green, then call them "green power plants".
"You can never win. You can never break even."- yours truly, Entropy
I really don’t get why everyone fights about this stuff. There is no one solutions it’s not coal, wind, and sun or nuclear it’s all of them combined.
Where its economically sensible say Arizona you might want to lean toward solar or say West Virginia lean toward coal. Also I think it would be smart of this country to go to a distributed power generation. What I mean buy this is to have new buildings help produce some of their own power by putting solar cells on their roofs or in the windows. MIT just developed a way to put a solar cell in a piece of glass and it still be transparent. In a large office building it could make some good economic sense (free power) and not change the way the building looks. Also you could look at this from a military strategy stand point. With buildings able to generate their own power it makes it a lot harder to cripple a city from taking out a power plant. Heck our interstate highways were never built just to help people get from point A to point B. They where built for the military to get troops a cross the country fast.
True on all counts, but the problem is these people (like T. Boone) are pushing a total conversion, not just distributed power production. He wants to line the entire central plains with wind farms. WTF?
I agree wind mills are especially nice on tall buildings while solar panels make sense on other buildings, but they are atm still too expensive. Hopefully that will change eventually (will soon for solar panels), but I really don't think it will for wind mills....not to the point that a corporation would spend the cash to put one on their building.
Wind farms, however, are a fad that we will one day regret. And we could be putting that money to much greater use.
Reminder to all: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL! STOP ARGUING THAT IT WILL REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE BECAUSE IT DOES NOTHING TO HELP THAT PROBLEM!
Several billion dollars for new transmission lines is going to cost a h*** of a lot more than $4/month.
Capacity factor is better for wind than solar photovoltaic, but doesn't come close to traditional base load generation like coal (boo) or nuclear.
If this can substitute for natural gas, per the Pickens plan, great, assuming I can use that for my vehicle (converting my car *and* retrofitting the local gas station to supply CNG costs $$$ as well)
Just understand the cost to add significantly more transmission capacity *and* to switch to smaller capacity, lower availablity generation sources like wind is going to cost much more than a few bucks per month.
In the absence of California-sized subsidies, renewable costs much more.
Not so. The cost of the lines is estimated at $4/month per household (beginning in around 2014) and is likely to be outweighed by the savings when wind-generated electricity displaces power from natural gas. I'll see if I can rustle up the total savings numbers.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.powerofwind.org
www.awea.org
www.20percentwind.org
"...blow other states away."
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!